… while insisting it was not intoxicated, could not explain its nudity.

Nov

14

2017

A Foot in the River

Why Our Lives Change -- and the Limits of Evolution

Another book in the "thought I would like it better than I did"
category. (And after I persuaded the library at the University Near Here
to purchase a copy, too!)

The author, Felipe Fernández-Armesto, is a British historian, now at Notre
Dame. His broad subject here (as the subtitle hints) is cultural change,
and his concern that the notion of "evolution" should not be applied to
such changes.

At first his writing style seemed lively and picturesque. As the book
wore on, I found it increasingly irritating, opinionated, and unfocused.
So it goes.

It didn't help that I've been reading a lot about "cultural
evolution" over the past few months, for example:
Darwin's
Unfinished Symphony
by Kevin Laland;
The
Evolution of Everything by Matt Ridley;
The
Secret of Our Success by Joseph Henrich. They love using
the E-word to describe cultural change. Ridley, for one, describes it as
"ideas having sex", producing unexpected results that get
selected/deselected in unpredictable ways.

You don't have to buy into this whole notion all the way, but it seems
that these writers are onto something. In his dissent, Fernández-Armesto
doesn't really engage with this idea, but instead quibbles that
"evolution" is a misleading misnomer, with too many Darwinistic
implications to be a useful metaphor. That's not a bad argument—nobody
wants to misuse a metaphor, or mindlessly apply inapplicable biological lessons.
But that's it. Fernández-Armesto mentions (for example) Kevin Laland in
a couple of spots, but never seems to fully explore (or understand?) his findings or
arguments.

Charles Murray comes in for scorn for The Bell Curve, which
Fernández-Armesto describes unfairly. He's also unfairly dismissive of
Herbie Spencer.

In a generally positive
WSJ
review of the book, J.R. McNeill notes that Fernández-Armesto is
"striving too hard for effect"; one of his provocative points is that
“cannibalism is typically—you might almost say peculiarly—human and
cultural.” McNeill then rattles off numerous examples of non-human,
not-cultural cannibalism in nature. Geez, if only a scientist had
pre-reviewed the book before publication.

And Princess Diana—Felipe's not a fan! "She was, I thought, and think still, a
morally abominable person, shallow, meretricious, promiscuous, selfish,
exhibitionistic, and talentless." Yeah, but as near as I can remember,
she avoided speaking ill of the dead.

Not that Fernández-Armesto's argument depends in any way on Di's
alleged character flaws. He just wanted to let us know, a drive-by
slagging.

Political experts have cited many reasons for Democrat Ralph
Northam's huge win in Tuesday's elections. Credit has gone to the
state's changing demographics. And to high voter turnout.
And to loathing for Donald Trump, which helped drive turnout. Some
on the right blamed Republican Ed Gillespie not being Trumpian
enough.

One explanation was conspicuous by its absence, however:
money.

In the closing weeks of the campaign, Northam enjoyed a 2-1 advantage in
financing: He went into October with $5.7 million in his pocket,
compared to Gillespie's $2.5 million. By the time the polls closed,
Northam had spent $32 million to Gillespie's $23 million.

ABH notes further a certain disparity in the way things are covered:

The difference in scrutiny is revealing, in the same way that frequent references to "the gun lobby"—but never "the abortion lobby"—are revealing. When conservative or libertarian groups support a Republican candidate, it's proof that the candidate is "in the pocket of" powerful and nefarious interests who have "bought and paid for" her support. When liberal or progressive groups contribute to a Democratic candidate, it's proof that the candidate's principled stand on important issues has earned the support of ordinary people who share her values.

Many liberals point to the rising price tag of American political
campaigns to support calls for campaign finance reform.

According to Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and many others, the
billions of dollars donated to political campaigns by individuals
and corporations amount to “legalized
bribery” on the part of big corporations and the
super-wealthy.

But constraining private citizens’ ability to fund political speech would not empower the average citizen. Instead, one of the major beneficiaries would be nationwide media conglomerates and their wealthy owners.

Neither York nor I want to tell NBC who they are and are not allowed
to interview during a football telecast. But Progressive calls for
"campaign finance reform" are largely about cementing in Progressive
advantages in getting their mugs on-air in "friendly" situations.

The diversity lottery is emblematic of our wrongheaded thinking
about immigration. Here’s the way it works: Countries that have sent
lots of immigrants to the United States (more than 50,000 over five
years) are put on an exclusion list, and the rest of the world gets
to enter an immigration sweepstakes in which first prize is an
immigration visa for the United States. Those are much coveted,
because there aren’t a lot of other ways for people who do not
already have family in the United States or highly prized work
skills to immigrate. So, Canadians are out of luck, along with
Mexicans, Colombians, Vietnamese, Indians, and those pesky
Englishmen who have for generations been packed into the squalid
Anglo-Saxon ghettos that mar so many of our otherwise fair cities
with their tea and cricket and ironic diffidence.

Not to mention the stiff upper lips.

But Kevin's right: the "diversity lottery" serves no compelling
American interest. Junk it. Yesterday, if possible.

Mainly notable for the quotes, for example
from Elizabeth Carlin Metz, chair of Knox’s theater department:

“I believe that academia needs continually to be vigilant about the shifting nuances in addressing sensitive texts,” Carlin Metz told The Fix. “I think we must put them in our syllabi and on our stages so that we can interrogate our assumptions and examine our past in order to understand [our] present…We need to acknowledge privilege in all sectors and the inherent bias that ensues. And we all need to listen.”

Prof Carlin Metz, master of academic bafflegab. From the "General
Interests" of her
faculty
page:

"As a stage director in both the profession and academia, I am most
stimulated and delighted by theatre that is visceral, provocative,
and challenging. While I am interested in all forms of theatre, I am
most drawn to contemporary non-traditional theatre that explores the
human condition. I seek to integrate physical theatre techniques
with more traditional Western theatre practices so as to discover
new levels of expressiveness and meaning in theatre of all styles
and genres and, thus, in the world."

I explained to Russ that we have, as a state, collectively
considered passing seat belt laws in the past and decided we
preferred that the government just stay out of it. I asked him what
he thought of that line of reasoning.

“The motto ‘Live Free or Die’ may be ingrained in the culture of the
state, but people are dying needlessly because of lack of belt use,"
Russ said.

"We could be saving a lot of lives if people were required to buckle up.”

What Russ doesn't mention is that we could be saving a lot
more lives with all sorts of other laws. Alcohol prohibition,
this time with real teeth! Mandatory helmets for passengers and
drivers! 25 MPH speed limits everywhere!

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court took a critical first step in protecting the First Amendment right of pro-life pregnancy care centers to speak to their clients free from government coercion.

At issue is a California law requiring those centers to notify all
comers of possible "free or low-cost access" to, among other things, baby-killing services.
And there's an LFOD connection:

The First Amendment not only prohibits the government from telling
people what they cannot say, it prohibits the government
from telling people what they must say. Based on that
principle of law, the Supreme Court has upheld the right of a New
Hampshire citizen to black out the state’s motto (“Live Free or
Die”) on his car’s license plate. It has upheld the right of students and teachers not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance if doing so would violate their conscience. It has struck down a state law requiring newspapers to print a reply critical of a paper’s editorials.

So, good luck with that. Kennedy's still on the SC, so I'm not
optimistic about their chances.

Disclaimers:
Unquoted opinions expressed herein are solely those of the
blogger.

Pun Salad is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates
Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a
means for the blogger to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.